Soldier pleads guilty to murder and rape of Iraqis; will testify against against others

In one of the ultimate war crimes, an Army soldier in Ft. Cambell, Ky. has pled guilty to murder and rape of Iraqis, as reported today on USAToday.com

He pled, according to his lawyer, to avoid the death penalty.

One of four U.S. soldiers accused of raping an Iraqi girl last spring and killing her and her family pleaded guilty Wednesday and will testify against the others.

Spc. James P. Barker agreed to the plea deal to avoid the death penalty, said his civilian attorney, David Sheldon.

The killings in Mahmoudiya, a village about 20 miles south of Baghdad, were among the worst in a series of alleged attacks on civilians and other abuses by military personnel in Iraq.

Sgt. Paul E. Cortez and Pfc. Jesse V. Spielman, both members of the 101st Airborne Division with Barker, could face the death penalty if convicted in the case in courts-martial at Fort Campbell.

The alleged ringleader, former Army private Steve Green, 21, pleaded not guilty last week to charges including murder and sexual assault.

I remember the reports of the 1968 My Lai Massacre seemingly everday on the news in 1971.

If this murder and rape case goes to trial, one would hope that it would be on television so we could see what soldiers out of control can do. As it is, I'm sure we will have detailed accounts of it.

The United States does not want to be a member of the International Criminal Court because we do not want our soldiers and elected officials subject to the jurisdiction of a war crimes tribunal. President Clinton signed on to the treaty creating the ICC in the waning days of his administration, the Senate never getting to ratify, and President Bush disavowed it.

To prove we believe in the concept of international law, however, we have to try punish own who have been found guilty of war crimes. If not, the superiors who condone or refuse to act are themselves guilty of violations of the Geneva Convention, which Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez said was so "quaint" that it could be made "flexible" out of existence. MSNBC has an excellent piece on the Roots of Torture.

We have already treaded dangerously close to the edge of the limits of the Geneva Convention, if not already falling over it, in torturing people for information.

If a factually verifiable prosecution of soldiers for unjustified homicide and a never justifiable rape is not pursued, then we are the bad guys, too.

The indictment accuses Green and others of raping the 14-year-old girl and burning her body to conceal their crimes. It also alleges that Green and four others stationed at a nearby checkpoint killed the girl's father, mother and 6-year-old sister.

Barker has given investigators vivid accounts of the assault. An investigator testified during a hearing in August that Barker had said the soldiers drank whiskey and played cards while plotting the assault, that Barker, Cortez and Green took turns raping the girl, and that Green shot her and her family.

Now tell me - how over the line was the above? Would it make a difference if the above had happened somewhere in the United States?

A 14 year-old was raped repeatedly, murdered, and then her body burned. Her family, including her 6 year-old sister were then killed.

Remember this? Liberators. We're going to show raqis the face of democracy.

As for this stupid comment:

And as for "crossing the line of the Geneva Convention" remember that the other side isn't exactly playing by the same rules. Not that this is a justification but it does make the situation less black and white.

That's not the point. This isn't a f**king game like checkers or dominoes. We were taught in basic training about the Geneva Convention. It is about US being honorable, treating those captured humanely so it may be reciprocated when our own are captured.

This is a reply I received by e-mail from Mike, a soldier in Afghanistan,

First let me say that I'm a fan. I've been lurking for about a year now. I can't sign up for an account because of something to do with my IP address.

I am a soldier serving in Afghanistan. While I have opinions regarding the ICC, (I'm not a fan, because I work with European military personnel every day, and I read, or have read to me, European newspapers) I'll leave that aside for now.

I offer no excuse or justification for the horrific crime perpetrated by my brothers against this girl and her family. I can only tell you all that events like this are why the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Conventions, and all of the rest of the Laws of Land Warfare are most assuredly NOT "quaint."

They exist for the primary reason to separate us, soldiers who kill on behalf of the state, from gangsters and thugs. They are the primary and sometimes only, normative force for young people spending their days in a hellish situation. The knowledge that there are standards to which I and my men must hold ourselves, and the certainty that we will be held accountable for our actions is one of the tools that I and other military leaders use to maintain discipline.

This court martial, therefore, serves many more purposes than a civilian trial does. One, it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused, and holds them responsible for their actions, just like the civilian system. Two, it serves as a reminder to all of us in uniform that we are held to a special standard, regardless of the actions or habits of the enemy. Three, because it deals with a situation that has analogs to our own experiences, it becomes a tool for the normative function that any military force needs to maintain the discipline that I wrote of earlier. Lastly, it allows us to get on with the mission, having (as much as is possible) restored our collective honor, without which we are nothing but a mob of similarly dressed thugs, more like a street gang than an army.

I can't adequately express the extent to which this atrocity tears at my soul.

It also makes me give thanks that I'm not under the kind of pressures our forces are exposed to on a daily basis in the ME - such pressures that might reveal similar gaping, yet otherwise unknown, flaws in my own character.

We have already treaded dangerously close to the edge of the limits of the Geneva Convention, if not already falling over it, in torturing people for information.

If a factually verifiable prosecution of soldiers for unjustified homicide and a never justifiable rape is not pursued, then we are the bad guys, too.

The plain and simple fact is that the US has long since crossed the line at the limits of the Geneva Convention. There's no real dispute over that - had there been one, the whole Torture Act Bushie rammed through a couple months ago would have been unnecessary.

That these troops are being prosecuted is one of the few shreds of dignity the current admin has left; but the fact of the crimes they appear to have committed (there is a dead body, so something wrong happened) casts a very bad light on their unit. Remember, it was almost a certainty that these soldiers' misconduct led to the familial-revenge kidnapping, murder and boobytrapping of the body of one of their fellow soldiers - from their unit. The since-discharged soldier was picked up returning to the Ft. Campbell area from Arlington, where he'd gone to the funeral of that soldier.

The Europeans are smug in this case because while they like to use the speech of diplomacy they rarely act. The events of Kosovo and Bosnia were illegal yet they saved countless of thousands of lives. And the impotency of the Europeans was tragic. The only reason Milosevich went to trial was because of our "technically illegal" involvement (to quote Wesley Clark). Rwanda, anyone? Darfur?

Yes, it's easier to bash the USA for these offenses and it is certainly justifiable. It would be more justifiable if we weren't doing anything about it. However, some people can't support the ICC or the UN or other internation agrements and treaties with great exuberance because they look great on paper but are rarely good in practice. (I understand there are notable exceptions).

Yeah, Rumsfeld is a war criminal. Yeah, Gonzalez loves torture. And we feel good about ourselves for pointing this out. Who cares about the millions dying while we feel good about ourselves?

And as for "crossing the line of the Geneva Convention" remember that the other side isn't exactly playing by the same rules. Not that this is a justification but it does make the situation less black and white.

However, some people can't support the ICC or the UN or other internation agrements and treaties with great exuberance because they look great on paper but are rarely good in practice. (I understand there are notable exceptions).

You can't have your cake and eat it too. The US can't boycott international agreements, and complain that they are ineffective. If you think the ICC is ineffective, then support it or shut up. If you think the UN is ineffective, then make it effective instead of sending Colin Powell to lie through his teeth to the Security Council, or John Bolton to talk about blowing up the place. Send troops to pacify troubled regions, instead of raping and murdering Iraqis.

Yeah, Rumsfeld is a war criminal. Yeah, Gonzalez loves torture. And we feel good about ourselves for pointing this out.

Prosecuting people like Rumsfeld and Gonzalez is about justice, not about making anyone feel good about themselves. If they have committed crimes, they should pay for them. Why would you let particular criminals off the hook, and prosecute others?

And as for "crossing the line of the Geneva Convention" remember that the other side isn't exactly playing by the same rules. Not that this is a justification but it does make the situation less black and white.

It sounds very much like an attempt at justification to me. The other side not playing by the rules is no reason to scrap the rules.

You are right that this is not a black and white situation. In fact, I think there are few situations in life which are. However, while I can see why you might find the Europeans smug and ineffectual, might I be so bold as to suggest that that if the USA wants to make a significant humanitarian on the world, they might start with Guantanamo?